Ed Schultz: Jesus Would Dig ObamaCare.
Listening to Ed Schultz name-drop the Messiah (the actual One, not the present occupant of the White House), one almost waxes nostalgic for the days of yore when liberals’ ruminations on Christianity were limited to their use of the pejorative “American Taliban”.
Schultz is confident that “Jesus would vote yes for a public option, but some ‘Bible thumpers’ don’t see me eye to eye on this one”.
Question: Doesn’t Schultz’ shameless name-dropping qualify him for his own “Bible thumper” pejorative? While we wait for an answer, let’s consider Schultz a bit more.
Schultz goes on to describe the “need” to fix health care as a “moral obligation” (h/t Newsbusters.org):
“Fixing health care in this country is a moral obligation,” Schultz said. “There isn’t any way around it, at least that’s how I see it and I think the public option to make health care affordable and accessible is a key, fulfilling moral obligation in this country. But some religious leaders don’t agree with me on that.”
Not surprisingly, when Schultz consults someone who might have a modicum of subject matter expertise in such matters he gets a less-than-supportive answer. Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research council, had this to say in response to Schultz’s inane “Jesus would dig a public option” theory:
“Well at first, let me say I do believe we have some problems in our health care system in America today,” Perkins said. “And I would agree with you that we do have a moral obligation to care for our neighbors. This is where we disagree. The issue is the selective lifting of scriptures of the teachings of Jesus, like from Matthew Chapter 25 that Al Gore used over the weekend that are actually teachings to the church and to fellow Christian followers of Jesus to care for others. And I’m thankful that that has historically been the view because it was churches and religious people who established the hospitals in this country. And we do have an obligation to care for the poor. But it’s not the government’s obligation.”
Perkins also pointed out the manifest hypocrisy of liberals who suddenly think its chic to attempt to cherry-pick scriptures condusive to the pro-ObamaCare position. Oh, and just a reminder: These same people who think that a public option would blow Jesus’ hair back invariably think that it’s okay to vacuum a human being out of the womb. So there is that.
The truth of the matter is that Christianity, like America herself, is based almost entirely around the idea of individual freedom and voluntary associations. Charity is separate and apart from government not just by virtue of separate nomenclatures: charity involves time and resources freely given to organizations that are wholly voluntary. Schultz’s argument that the government is “by the people” and therefore some sort of charity is absurd. It ignores the reality of the situation that though government does in fact derive its powers from the people, it’s an institution that consists of career politicians who are perpetually contending against the innate tendencies of all governments to become corrupt and stultifyingly inefficient.
It is an endless source of frustration to conservatives that liberals cannot seem to see that our health care system–which, by the way, is the best in the world–would be infinitely better still were it not for the efforts of government to “help”. If the federal government would extricate itself from the marketplace and religate itself to its appropriate role as impartial referee, interceding only when men’s rights are infringed upon in contravention of laws which are predicated on Constitutional principles, health insurance would be infinitely more affordable, doctors wouldn’t practice defensive medicine, risk could be more effectively managed (which is the point of insurance to begin with), policies could be custom made to suit individual needs and wants, and there would be a greater variety of the sort of “competition” that Democrats surreptitiously claim a public option would help provide. We don’t need a public option to keep insurance companies “honest”; we merely need to make them compete across state lines and without legal minimums that Democrats in their infinite wisdom foisted upon insurers in the first place. Democrats have helped in many states to create the conditions that allow hegemonic control of the insurance market where single companies control more than 70% of the insurance market in that state. Does anyone really believe that more of the same will somehow magically cure what ails?
Files the public option alongside of deficit spending in the category of “smoke more to avoid lung cancer” in the liberal bag of tricks.